3 ms·

But I am not making it an us vs them, that's the whole point. Your argument is that we should all be trying to maximize the benefits to the citizens of our own

But I am not making it an us vs them, that's the whole point. Your argument is that we should all be trying to maximize the benefits to the citizens of our own country, and no one else, literally an us vs them position. For many countries, blocking U.S. Internet services and substituting 80%-of-the-way domestic alternatives does just that in terms of boosting employment. It might not be the same legal framework, but if you are advocating for putting co-national workers first at all costs, then that's very much an option. I consider an open web to be one of those principles that are worth maintaining, though. But it definitely is lower on the list than many other concerns that might count as 'nice to haves' under the nationalistic argument I am seeing made. Note that I am in favor of better conditions for workers, more progressive taxes, UBI, free higher education, some forms of fair-trade arrangements, you name it. What I am not for is "no foreigners until unemployment is strictly at zero". I think in the long run we should be able to come up with systems at the national and international levels that are fair to both local workers and immigrants. In the context of the current administration, though, I don't see us getting that, I see a lot of scapegoating, a lot of rash policies and an international industry supported by an international workforce, eventually either dying, fragmenting or leaving the U.S.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
Your argument is that we should all be trying to maximize the benefits to the citizens of our own country, and no one else, literally an us vs them position. Building up domestic industries is a win for everyone and that goes for any country. Send your best workers to Silicon Valley and your nation is already suffering a drain on talent. For many countries, blocking U.S. Internet services and substituting 80%-of-the-way domestic alternatives does just that in terms of boosting employment. It might not be the same legal framework, but if you are advocating for putting co-national workers first at all costs, then that's very much an option. Those countries are welcome to try it and it might even be good for them, but I doubt they want to lose access to US services. That's what leverage is. If those countries have leverage then let them use it. I think in the long run we should be able to come up with systems at the national and international levels that are fair to both local workers and immigrants. Ok, so let's deal with the current H-1B program now instead of waiting another 4 or 8 or 16 years or however long some people would like to delay it.

aaron-lebo 10y ago

Your argument is that we should all be trying to maximize the benefits to the citizens of our own country, and no one else, literally an us vs them position. Building up domestic industries is a win for everyone and that goes for any country. Send your best workers to Silicon Valley and your nation is already suffering a drain on talent. For many countries, blocking U.S. Internet services and substituting 80%-of-the-way domestic alternatives does just that in terms of boosting employment. It might not be the same legal framework, but if you are advocating for putting co-national workers first at all costs, then that's very much an option. Those countries are welcome to try it and it might even be good for them, but I doubt they want to lose access to US services. That's what leverage is. If those countries have leverage then let them use it. I think in the long run we should be able to come up with systems at the national and international levels that are fair to both local workers and immigrants. Ok, so let's deal with the current H-1B program now instead of waiting another 4 or 8 or 16 years or however long some people would like to delay it.